How much suspension of disbelief does it take to buy into the version of events proffered by Michael Brown's friend? Let's begin earlier that day when police officer Darren Wilson wearily arose to carry out another shift in the dreamland that is Ferguson, MO. Officer Wilson, by all reports, was an outstanding officer: quiet, competent, efficient. Not showy or given to much brio or braggadocio. He coolly carried out his assignments day after day without drawing much attention. He got along well with his fellow officers, all of whom were white, but not because of lack of recruitment efforts to bring more "diversity" to the force. Apparently, potential black officers can find nicer places to work than this mid-western paradise.
So, after six years of calm competence, we are to led believe he suddenly went berserk and decided to gun down a citizen who was surrendering to him with his hands up. According to Brown's "friend," the officer jumped out of his patrol car, ran over to Brown, grabbed him by the collar, and tried to shove him into the vehicle. (Steven Seagal, call your agent.) Excuse me, but I have NEVER seen an officer this side of the most egregious TV or movie fiction act in such a manner. It boggles the imagination that one might do so.
Apparently, Brown and friend were sauntering down the middle of the street. Officer Wilson asked the two to move onto the sidewalk BEFORE he received the radio description of suspects who allegedly robbed a convenience store minutes before. So, at the outset, the officer was not even looking for suspects, just asking a pair of jug heads to get out of the middle of the street. Supposedly, this police veteran then suddenly became enraged and carried out a series of actions beyond the pale which ended in essentially cold blooded murder.
On top of this, we have a "witness" who quite possibly was involved with Brown in a strong-armed robbery minutes before and had every motivation in the world to alter the story in such a way that he and his friend looked like "the real" victims. (Other narratives are now coming out which confirm Officer Wilson's version, from eye-witnesses who did NOT have a vested interest in making the police look bad.) Regardless of the two suspect's participation in the alleged robbery, why such divergent tales from so many different sources?
The "new" witnesses, i.e. those with no motive to shield Brown and friend, say Michael Brown charged the police car and repeatedly punched the officer in the face while trying to wrest his sidearm from him (now THIS scenario I've seen many times.) The gun went off as guns will and Mr. Brown started to run off. (BTW, don't believe for one minute that if Brown had successfully wrenched the pistol away from Officer Wilson, he would suddenly have been overcome by a wave of Christian charity and NOT shot the poor cop to death - for no reason. Now THAT would have been an outrage. Unfortunately, it is one that occurs just about every couple of weeks in this country, unheralded, unlamented and unsung.) Now, Brown, realizing that no one had been hit, stopped in his tracks, turned and tried to bum rush the officer, who by this time had gained full control of his weapon. In defense of his life, the officer fired tandem two's, the suspect did not go down, so he fired again. The suspect fell only a couple of feet from the officer.
Which version do you believe? A fine officer with years of service decided to go crazy and shoot down a citizen in cold blood? Or, a suspected felon starts a fight with a cop who had only asked him to get off the street and onto the sidewalk? Really? Is there universe where this is actually a legitimate question? All the forensic evidence coming out supports the policeman's (and other's) version, as well.
All that's left is a bunch of sanctimonious nonsense on CNN by Al, Jesse and the rest of the "umbrage brigade" about how "blacks" in Ferguson, MO, don't have any "opportunity," by which they presumably mean jobs. Let's see, the little Indian man at the convenience store had a job. The policeman had a job. The dispatcher had a job. The cigar maker had a job. Yes, two minutes before the incident, everyone was peacefully pursuing their own business. And, Yes, everyone on the scene had a job except the two suspects (and likely most of the rioters who busily assuaged their "outrage" by liberating 57" flat screens and burning down the local Shop 'N' Go.)
So, why so few entry level jobs for young black men? Well, minimum wage has been pushed up by the Dems to the point where only a few are left. Obamacare is killing the rest. What about the welfare state? These young men were obviously healthy of body, so they had been getting their share of free school lunches (and maybe food stamps as well.) Remember, students can't learn (or attack the police) if they are hungry. What about the Murphy Brown Family template? How's that working out for young black men? Brown was from such an arrangement, i.e. what we used to call a broken home. Let's see: no respect for authority? Check. Violent, uncontrollable impulses? Check. Unchecked need for instant gratification? Check. No moral compass? Check. Willful, angry and entitled? Check, check and check.
It looks as if the liberal scorecard for helping blacks in general and young black men in particular is pretty grim. Do the math. Right before election time, the left-wing media pulls another "evil white racist" with mandatory "innocent black victim" rabbit out of its collective hat. It seems as if even people as stupid as liberals would eventually learn they are being used to keep liberal politicians in office, liberal rabble-rousers in causes, the non-Fox media in profitable stories and all of the above clothed in robes of insufferable, self-serving, self-righteousness.